Skip to main content

View Diary: Sen. Wyden plans tough questions for Brennan on targeted killings. ACLU files suit in the matter (192 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Did some further research (0+ / 0-)

    Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
    Looks like the primary difference with the UN policy is that there is no requirement for 'imminence' with regard to the threat.

    Before this ruling, shooting a fleeing subject was generally allowed by common law.

    •  which is the only exception I know of (0+ / 0-)

      and even still you will not see it used much because shooting a fleeing suspect is as much a legal bad idea as it is a political one. Hence my crack about traffic duty. No department I know of wants to have that happen becasue justified or not it's a serious blow to the relationship between police and community

      Drone strikes against terrorsits is entirely different and as such any comparison between the 2 is limited at best

      •  Not entirely different, somewhat different (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You have a suspected criminal (terrorist) evading arrest (capture). You have the choice to either shoot (drone strike) or let him go and try to arrest (capture) him through some other means.

        If you have a reasonable belief that allowing the suspected criminal (terrorist) to escape will pose a significant threat to human life before the opportunity exists to arrest (capture) him this Supreme Court decision would seem to justify the kill.

        Of course there are political ramifications in either case, what you mention in the case of domestic criminals, and international pressure with drone strikes on terrorists. But from a legal sense it seems the cases are more alike than different.

        I certainly would prefer in both cases if a warrant for arrest was required by a judicial authority.

        •  no (0+ / 0-)

          becuase in your example the criminal even if armed is going to be outnumbered and the cops will have support in the form of dispatch and helicopters (if needed) not to mention the cops are actually physically present

          None of which is true about terrorists

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (56)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (26)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Racism (20)
  • Elections (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Economy (18)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Politics (16)
  • Media (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Texas (15)
  • Barack Obama (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site